Total topics: 34
Recently had a good debate on Anarcho-Capitalism - the idea that the state apparatus ought to be evicted from its normative functions and replaced by privatised organisations. Because of how radical this idea is, I'm interested to hear some questions or concerns with the theory and hopefully answer them. Some questions which may be of interest might involve;
- How can economic monopolies be contained?
- How do we prevent malevolent terrorists from taking over?
- What organisation writes and enforces the law?
- Don't socialised programs help people in need?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Uncertain as to how long I'll be back, but with some free time, I'm seeking a debate with some high level competitor.
Topic proposals (preferred but not limited to)
- That abortion is immoral (pro)
- Trans women are not women (pro)
- Efficacy of gender affirming care (con)
- God's existence (con)
- Subjective morality (pro)
- Competing accounts of mind (dualism v. physicalism etc)
- Competing accounts of economic doctrines (capitalism, socialism, marxism)
PM if there is anything else you would be interested in clashing in.
Edit: If a sufficient debater wants to, I'm happy to run the Israel v. Palestine clash as well.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
People engage in political discourse not to determine whether what they believe is right/wrong or better/worse, but to further their own political party and to essentially ridicule their opposition.
If there were some way to determine that a large percent of Mexicans would vote Republican upon (illegally or not) immigrating to the US, I hypothesise that Republicans would suddenly become the party advocating for the rights of Mexicans to be here, whilst Democrats would argue along the "pro-wall" stance.
Another perhaps more applicable example is the vaccine. We get a ghost of evidence for my theory when Kamala Harris alluded to the COVID vaccine as the "Trump Vaccine". I can almost guarantee that, if Trump were to remain president and he had pushed strongly vaccine mandates, the left would be the "anti-vaccine" (perhaps to a lesser extent) and the right would be the "pro-vaccine" party. I can almost hear the "my body my choice I'm not taking the Trump Vaccine" chants stirring on the streets.
I think this polarisation can be observed in the fact that the left and right share not a single commonality. What are the chances of this? On not a single issue, whether it be age old (abortion), or current (Rittenhouse), there is literally no agreement that we can ever observe. Ordinarily, two individuals should be able to find some common ground, but never in politics.
I hold that, though this is unprovable but nonetheless, I stand by it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Careful theists...
P1. All people have free will.
P2. People in heaven do not sin.
C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven).
P3. God created all People.
C2. God created the People in C1.
C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
P2. People in heaven do not sin.
C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven).
P3. God created all People.
C2. God created the People in C1.
C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Would you rather
- Commit 30 1st trimester abortions
- Kill 1 toddler.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Put this forum under science but I have a nagging feeling many answers I receive will be unscientific.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Was watching some Anthony Logan and found that apparently "CDC Says Prior COVID Infection Provides More Protection Than The Vaccine". I've been hit with so many conflicting narratives that I don't even know what to believe at this point.
I recommend inspecting both.
Another disclaimer, I don't have a view on this as of current. This is just something I wanted to share.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Artistic expressions
I've been here for 9 months and remained fairly unostentatious about my identity, however, I feel as though I have established myself as a user well enough that I can share some of my views in more depth.
Currently, I am 16 (not for long) and live in Australia (so yes, Faux or whatever you're calling yourself, you lost to a kid). Everyone's been saying that Australia has become a concentration camp and that we're degrading to the convicts we once were, but if you actually live here, it's not that bad. I just stay at home debating, watching Netflix and chilling whilst my classes play in the background. Though I don't have a strong opinion on the whole Coronavirus thing, I will say it is slightly amusing that everything the Australian government does is pretty much useless. They said that if you get double vaxxed we'll be out of this - we weren't. They said that if we had harsh lockdowns we could stamp the virus out - that didn't happen. They said if we followed all their instructions we could resume to normality - didn't happen. In fact, Covid was completely under control until the government messed up the hotel quarantine. Personally, I feel that if we had completely closed the border's when this began, the economic and health of Australians today would be far better off. But at the end of the day, I'm not the health minister.
The following are some of my beliefs:
- LGBTQ
- Homosexuality is not a choice and should be protected by law.
- Children with gender dysphoria should not be allowed to transition.
- There are two genders - I do not accept Two-Spirit or Boi.
- Undoubtedly this will be controversial so I refer you to Dr Debra Soh's The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society. She's a liberal sexologist who received her Ph.D in sexual neuroscience from York University. Her publication has received praise from Ben Shapiro, Richard Dawkins, Bret Weinstein and Steven Pinker.
- Religion
- Anti theism
- Tax churches.
- Separation of church and state.
- Creationism should be taught in history or like witchcraft.
- God doesn't exist.
- If you believe in a God with the omni attributes, it is my opinion that you are extremely naive.
- Morality
- I believe that metaphysical solipsism can be justified, so technically no morality?
- If we are to grant that our senses perceive an accurate representation of the world (which can be granted on an axiomatic ground) and that fields such as mathematics can be considered objective (i.e, objectivity exists) , Sam Harris' Moral Landscape view on morality (that it is objective) is convincing.
- General Politics
- Flat tax.
- Taxing X person a higher percentage Y person means you are taking a larger portion of money from X person. X person's money was acquired through work. Work requires time, therefore, if you do not have X's permission yet you take more of X's money, you are taking their work which is taking their time which is slavery.
- Free utility, healthcare and education honestly sound great but nothing is really free and I am yet to hear a sustainable or plausible plan, even in theory.
- In Australia, if you receive a doctor referral, you can have free x-rays, blood tests etc, which is pretty neat. I’m not too invested into Australian healthcare, so I am unsure whether this is supplied by taxpayer money, or medicare.
- Anyone who wants to abolish the police should live in South Chico or Detroit for a while.
- Pro-life
- I generally like to add theoretical before pro-life. My pro-lifeness is justified on the grounds that it is philosophically immoral, yet, everyday people are doing immoral things without thought or consequences. When is the last time you spent money that wasn't strictly necessary? Whether it is upgrading a phone or buying a couch, I invite you to weigh the importance of such purchases with the lives of starving children which could have been spared, were you to donate your money. Surely, everyone reading this has at least some money which they could use to save literal lives, yet no one does so.
- So in layman's terms, abortion is theoretically immoral but, in my personal opinion, I don't really care if people have it (there is of course a distinction to be made from abortion which are a result of rape and abortions which are resulted from intentionally non-caring and narcissistic individuals who turn up at the abortion clinic every couple months). Such is similar to veganism. The killing of sentient beings for the pleasure of your tastebuds is clearly wrong. I know this, yet I still love eating pork belly and will not stop. I suppose such is a character flaw, but it is one ingrained in the human kind.
- Systemic racism, defined as "a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organisation" does not exist because there is no explicit law which targets minorities. However, this definition is quiet counter productive - (most) BLM adherents are not arguing that laws are racist they are arguing that there is large scale racism. To state that "a bottle is not foundationally (systemically) poisonous because it was not built with poison" is to dodge the entire point - I don't care where the poison comes from, the discussion should be whether the poison exists at all. Such is the same as systemic racism. There is (practically) no applicable difference between a country which lives with a law which discriminates against minorities, and a country which tacitly discriminates against a minority (China and the Uyghurs muslims).
- In short, I do not know whether there is large scale racism though I will say that I read a study stating that minorities have become less targeted because police are scared they will be labelled as racists, which is quite interesting.
- Philosophy
- The existence of the mind can be doubted.
- Free will does not exist.
- Fate does not exist.
- There is no soul.
- Miscellaneous
- Here is my political compass. I would say that my "rightness" comes from my "nonsupport" of abortion and tendency to favour a free market over socialism. Other than that, I would say that I'm neutral.
So there you go, these are some of my views. As this is an AMA, ask me anything!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Matt Walsh was recently on the Dr Phil Show. Here is his own breakdown. From a purely neutral position, I don't think the gender activists did a very good job - they constantly had mental blocks and couldn't answer some pretty reasonable questions from Matt. To be fair, Dr Phil could have called on some more capable gender activists, especially if they were going to be "debating" someone as prominent and quick minded as Matt.
What do we think of this exchange? How would you have responded to Matt's questions?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
I was listening to the Joe Rogan experience episode with Theo Von, in which the two discuss Joe's quick recovery from Covid-19 - a conversation which followed after a discussion of "fake news", in particular how CNN repeatedly makes the claim the Joe took horse dewormer (this claim is, by the way, is completely false. Rogan invited neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta onto his podcast where he asked “does it bother you that the network you work for…just outright lied about me taking horse dewormer?” to which Gupta replied that his colleagues “shouldn’t have said that.”)
Right of the bat, CNN lying about what Joe took is suspicious, it is akin to saying that I promote ingesting cleaning products on the basis that I promote water. Joe went on to say that he was well within 2 days, received a negative covid test within 3 and back in the gym in 5 days. He went on to say something along the lines of the Biden administration restricting the use of Ivermectin in Florida and then concluding that they are doing this because pharmaceutical and vaccine companies want people to use their products and treatments.
How much of this is true? I would consider myself politically neutral and a person who follows where the evidence goes so this isn't a view which I will passionately defend, though thus far it does seem at least possible.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
If someone changes their gender, it is bigotry to refer to them in the way that they presented years ago: we accept people for who they are currently. If this were considered a good standard, then why is it acceptable to refer to an unsavoury tweet from a decade ago by a person who has since changed?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Why do people who have near death experiences recite different versions of the afterlife? Why do Christians see Jesus? Why do Hindus's see Brahma. Why do Islams see Allah? If Islam was true (hypothetically) why would a Christian facing a near death experience see Jesus, not Allah?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
DDO super villain vs the new(ish) guy on a secret topic, moderated by whiteflame. Live on Saturday at 11 pm EST. To access, use the following link.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
I've never been convinced by the arguments posed by trans ideologists but have never really thought it out carefully and typed it down, black and white. If the following is slightly rambled, well that's the reason this is a forum and not a debate. View this simply as a post where I let loose my fingers and say whatever I want.
Problem 1: Change your mind?
It is commonly asserted that gender and sex occupy different spheres. Whilst the term sex refers to biological attributes, gender is often said to be a social construct of which is in the mind. If this were the case, then why couldn’t one just change their mind? It sounds silly, but if gender has no bearing on physical biology and concerns only one's mind, surely it is easier to just change your mind. At this stage, ideologists usually say “no but XY&Z studies show that trans people have XY&Z similarities to their chosen gender”, which completely misses the point, as referencing studies conducted on the physical body no longer deals with gender, it has moved the conversation onto the realms of biology.
Problem 2: How do you know you are meant to be your chosen gender?
Picture the following. Since my childhood, I have always said that I am a native African (disclaimer I am not black). I have always felt “wrong”, in that my mind does not coincide with my body. For some reason, I just feel black. No doubt some of you hard core liberals would be halting at this scenario. What exactly does it mean to feel black? Am I being racist? Not at all, I have the exact same question as you do. How can one feel that they are black? Surely, the only way to know how it feels like to be black is to be black? How can a non-African possibly assert that they “feel” African without even being African? How would they know what the sensation is like? How would they know that what they feel are the feelings black people? Again, if you think that I am treading on the line of racism, I am only employing the ideology of transgendered people. My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.
Problem 3: Supervenience (scientific mumbo jumbo borrowed and paraphrased from semperfortis’ debate)
As aforementioned, the term sex is scientifically precise. he distinction between male and females rely on the genotype of the somatic cells. Simply, those who possess somatic cells with XX genotypes are female, and those with XY are male. Thus, the notion of “sex” is reducible to facts grounded in the physical world.
It could be argued that intersex people can’t coherently align with either “male” or “female” which could seem problematic for this position. However, it is a misconception that intersex are neither male nor female; let’s examine the types of intersex:
i) 46, XX DSD
This is where the person possesses the chromosomes of a woman, but the external genitalia appears male. Obviously, one with this form of intersex can still be deemed female.
ii) 46, XY DSD
iii) 46, XX ovotesticular DSD
Here is where more of a compelling argument can be made; as a person with this form is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue; and can even have both XX and XY chromosomes. However, per the definition of sexes provided, the genotype only applies to “somatic cells” which do not include reproductive cells.
iv) Sex chromosome DSD
On the othehand, the term gender is irreducible to physical facts. Gender is reliant on social and cultural factors when determining whether one is male, female or other. These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective. How can one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.
In science, observations are reducible; for example, if we were to analyse the temperature of a closed system, we would find that temperature is actually reducible to the vibration of particles. Thus, temperature supervenes on grounded empirical axioms (law of thermodynamics). Temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. Indeed, to talk of the temperature of a system being 0 degrees and not 100 degrees is coherent as temperature is reducible to a quantifiable measurement grounded in the physical world.
The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd. Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
Problem 4: Occam's razor cuts at gender.
As mentioned above, the term sex is sufficient in explaining our understanding of biology without the need for gender. Thus, the term gender is a mere ontological burden, of which Occam's razor does not allow. Why postulate the term gender, when sex sufficiently covers the field.
Problem 5: A slope to transracialism?
The thing which transgender ideologists do is that they create the term gender and assert that it takes precedence over the biologically grounded term, sex. However, if this is accepted, this can be done to any field of identification. Take the example I used above, that is, a genetically non-African asserting that they are in fact black. At the current stage, there is no construct version for the term race, but let’s postulate the term “rase”. Unlike it’s cousin, “rase” is not based on biology, it is completely in the mind and has no bearing on one's physical build. Would it then be sensible for me to assert that I, from this point on deny the factual term race, and opt to identify myself through rase. Also, I want everyone else to buy into this term rase, and pretend that I am whatever race that I want to be, PS not doing so denies me of my humanity.
Depending on the response that I receive, I may consider turning this into a debate. Either I have completely misunderstood something very simple, or ideologists out there have really neglected simple reasoning.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I've been thinking of widening my scope of debate outside of theology and Christianity. Does anyone have any essays about any topics (Ethics, philosophy, theology, politics, morality etc.) that they would be willing to share to everyone to read?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
- He told his followers to hate their families.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
- He came to break apart families.
I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:35-36
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51-53
- He insisted that his followers love him more than anyone else (including their families).
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37
- He encouraged people to abandon their home and family for his name's sake.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30
- He was rude to his own family.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Matthew 12: 47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21
- He was dismissive of other people's feelings toward their families.
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Matthew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62
- He discouraged marriage.
They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Luke 20:35
- He was a hypocrite. He told his followers not to call anyone a fool.
Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
Yet he often called his critics and disciples fools. Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools. Luke 11:40
O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25
- He encouraged his followers to mutilate themselves to avoid hell.
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out ... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:28-30
If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Matthew 18:8-9
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off ... And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off ... And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48
- He encouraged men to castrate themselves.
There are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12
- He approved of God's killings in the Bible.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words ... It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew 10:14-15
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:37
As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man ... the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot ... the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all ... Remember Lot's wife. Luke 17:26-32
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: John 3:14
- He believed in the Old Testament's stories.
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:27
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. ... Remember Lot's wife. Luke 17:29-32
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40
- He accepted Old Testament laws.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17
- He criticized the Pharisees for not killing parent-cursing children.
God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:4
Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Mark 7:10
- He and his dad plan to torture billions of people forever after they die.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Matthew 7:19
Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-50
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:46
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16
Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12: 5
- He implied that all Jews are going to hell.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8:12
- He was a false prophet.
Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matthew 10:23
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32
Behold, I come quickly. Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:11, 22:20
- He was a warmonger.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Revelation 19:11
- He was a megalomaniac.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed. Mark 8:38
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ... he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:18, 36
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:16
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
What are theists's honest opinion on atheists, vice versa?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Would be cool for verbal open floor conversation and general chatting.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
During Christmas time, the Independent was looking for a seasonal image and found a heart-warmingly ecumenical one at a school nativity play. The Three Wise Men were played by, as the caption glowingly stated, Shadbreet (a Sikh), Musharraf (a Muslim) and Adele (a Christian), all aged four. Perhaps one could call this a "charming" image, demonstrating "diversity at it's peak". I beg to differ. In what world does labelling four-year-old children's with the cosmic and theological opinions of which they had no choosing? To demonstrate the issue, imagine the same photograph, but with the caption as follows: Shadbreet (Democrat), Musharraf (Republican) and Adele (Communist) aged 4.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I blundered last time and posted a forum which conjured up in about 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I still own the US. Consider the following.
An interesting switch was pulled in Rome yesterday by Adam Nordwell, an American Chippewa chief. As he descended his plane from California dressed in full tribal regalia, Nordwell announced in the name of the American Indian people that he was taking possession of Italy "by right of discovery" in the same way that Christopher Columbus did in America. "I proclaim this day the day of the discovery of Italy" said Nordwell. "What right did Columbus have to discover America when it had already been inhabited for thousands of years? The same right I now have to come to Italy and proclaim the discovery of your country".
Nordwell suggests that his "discovery" of Italy is like Columbus's "discovery" of America in one important way: both Nordwell and Columbus claimed a country that alrelady had been inhabited by its own people for centuries. Thus, Nordwell insists that he has as much right to claim Italy as Columbus had to claim America. Of course, Nordwell has no right to claim Italy as his discovery. Therefore, it must follow that Columbus had no right to claim America either. Consider the following syllogism, but with myself.
P1. I claim America "by right of discovery" similar (in the most important aspect) to Columbus's claim to America.
P2. Columbus's claim to America "by right of discovery" is similar (in the most important aspect) to Norwell's claim to Italy.
P3. I have has no right to America.
C1. Columbus has no right to America.
P1 and P2 are objectively factual statements, nothing controversial. The last time I posted this, I had some people nit pick and say "well technically Columbus didn't actually touch down to America yadayada". This is no issue to what I am asserting. I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's. It matters not if there are technical disputes with who exactly took over America, the fact is that Indigenous America was taken over by X party and the current society see's no issue in such an act. Let X be whoever you think took over America, whether that be Columbus or whoever.
P3 is also obviously true, therefore the conclusion must also be true.
REPLYING TO OBJECTIONS:
Polytheist-Witch STATED: They had no papers to fight for ownership in court, had no guns, and Columbus was ruthless. Today people could fight you in court or just call the police. Not really the same. Not to mention we are a sovereign nation now.
Not having a mean of proving your existence does not mean that you do not exist. Just because you do not have guns to defend yourself, doesn't mean the taking of your land is right. That would be like me planning a home invasion and taking care to find someone who doesn't own a gun, as this would somehow make it "just". Just because I have more firepower and am able to overtake your land, doesn't mean the overtaking is actually right.
MisterChris STATED: It wasn't organized territory and the populations were sparse and similarly unorganized.
So as long as a civilisation is unorganised, it becomes alright to invade it? What if I dropped a bomb on Vatican City, thereby disorganizing it and then decided to invade it and claim it as mine? Would this be moral, on the basis that they were "sparse and unorganised".
Intelligence_06 STATED: When Columbus arrived, nobody "owned" the land.
==
You'll be surprised to learn that I am generally conservative on the issue of the Columbus landing, I just also happen to be open minded. I dislike people who hate on Columbus (get out of America if you don't like it) but came across this comparison which was too good not to share to a debating community. I believe Mr.Chris makes a good point in stating "all land expansion in history was done through CONQUERING land, which is exactly what Spain did." That would also be my response. My answer to this Columbus issue would be "I don't care, they were weak and during the era of the invasion, they couldn't hold there grounds". However, I initially made this forum in hopes of funding a more substantial answer than "I don't care". Though the conservative part of myself is telling me this, there's just something about invading and taking over a helpless and wholesome community which was otherwise enjoying themselves.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
I am aware that you need to "contribute" to the cite in order to collect the coins which you see on people's accounts. What exactly counts as a contribution?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Is it possible that perhaps the present doesn't exist at all, in that all our experiences include remembering things from the past. If the present does exist, how long does it actually last?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I have found the debateart word processer to be superior to other processers I have used and like it for it's simplicity and quoting feature. It would great to be able to use this feature outside of debates, in that I believe it would be beneficial to create a section on this cite where I can access the word processing system and save documents, even if I am not in an active debate. This would be personally be good for me, as I switch from computer to PC quite often and have to copy and paste my arguments and email them to myself, which often messes with debateart's quoting and spacing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Consider the following syllogism about how Italian explorer Christopher Columbus came into possession of America.
p1. Columbus landed on American soil for the first time in 1942, which was already inhabited by indigenous people.
p2. Columbus took possession of America, regardless of the inhabitants.
c1. Thus the presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land.
Using this conclusion.
p1. I travel to America right now.
p2. The presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land
c1. I possess America
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
I don't know whether people who enjoy debating also like watching people beat each other up. What do we think of the fight?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Sports
How do you do the double dotted point's thing in your argument (where you have one set of dots and another one further into the page)? It looks very intimidating and I would like to try it. Oromagi absolutely pops of here with it.
- I cant
do it
- for some reason
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Why did an omnipotent God allow 6 million Jews to die, while knowing that many of those victims were whispering begging Him in their final moments.
I've always wondered how Christians can remain convicted of an omnibenevolent God after an event such as WW2, but never gotten a straight answer. On all occasions I have asked this question, I have always received some fluffy stuff about the contrast of evil and good, suffering and whatnot. The following are common answers, all of which are amusingly poor.
GENERAL ANSWER: Without evil, there cannot be good.
Response
- Sure, the good of good can only be appreciated once the opposing feelings have been felt. But surely, the death of 6 million Jews is a bit of an overkill. A large proportion of the Jews themselves, who were likely praying to the every God who did not spare them, were likely decent human beings, many of whom were decent citizens.
- Even if the Holocaust did raise awareness of to evil, it still does not justify the actual event, Jew's are not lab rats who are observed for an outcome.
GOTQUESTIONS.ORG ANSWER: God’s permission is not the same as His approval. God allowed Adam to eat of the forbidden tree, but He did not approve of the action. In the same way, God’s allowing the Holocaust in no way suggests His approval of it.
This seperation of permission and approval is appallingly weak. In fact, in watching the Holocaust happen (how can an all loving being even watch something like this occur..?), God would be committing criminal negligence. He, being the Father of humanity (Proverbs 23:22: "Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old) has an obligation to care for mankind. Consider the following legal definition of criminal negligence.
Would a reasonable being, who is able to prevent the Holocaust, allow this event to occur? Would this constitute a "great falling short of the standard of care?" Sure sounds like it to me.
Consider the response from gotquestions.org, parallel to my own example.
SETTING: The Holocaust. God is able to prevent this from occurring at no cost.
P1. God did not approve of the Holocaust, he simply gave permission for it to occur.
P2. Therefore, he did not approve of it.
SETTING: A shallow pond. I am able to prevent a child from drowning at no cost.
P1. I did not approve of the child drowning, but I have permission for it to occur.
P2. Therefore, I did not approve of it.
Clearly, for a being to be in the position where they are able to prevent an event from occurring at no cost of their own, their personal view on the emotion can be the only factor which convinces me from doing otherwise. From a realistic point of view, how can God stand watching the Holocaust occur? He knows he can stop it. He knows it will cost him nothing. Why not spare the Jews?
Jehovah’s Witnesses ANSWER:
Myth: It’s wrong to ask why God allowed the Holocaust.
Fact: People of great faith have questioned why God allows evil. For instance, the prophet Habakkuk asked God: “Why do you allow violence, lawlessness, crime, and cruelty to spread everywhere?” (Habakkuk 1:3, Contemporary English Version) Rather than rebuke Habakkuk, God had the questions he asked recorded in the Bible for all to read.
Fact: People of great faith have questioned why God allows evil. For instance, the prophet Habakkuk asked God: “Why do you allow violence, lawlessness, crime, and cruelty to spread everywhere?” (Habakkuk 1:3, Contemporary English Version) Rather than rebuke Habakkuk, God had the questions he asked recorded in the Bible for all to read.
This is literally like me saying, Oh you don't approve of me allowing a child drown? No problem, you can send through a debateart.com question to me via my profile for all to see.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The Sabbath Day
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
The Permanence of Earth
“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4
“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
Seeing God
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
Human Sacrifice
“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21
[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31
[The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34
The Power of God
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
Personal Injury
“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25
“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
Circumcision
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10
“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2
Incest
“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22
“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
“And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
Trusting God
“A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2
Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” — Job 2:3
The Holy Lifestyle
“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7
“…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30
Punishing Crime
“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
Temptation
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
Family Relationships
“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26
Resurrection of the Dead
“…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9
“…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
The End of the World
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33
“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12
“Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Premise 1 Every human choice or action is driven by past events.
Premise 2 We do not control past events.
Conclusion 1 Human free will does not exist.
From my perspective, the syllogism seems simple to the point where it is irrefutable. What do we think?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy